There is always a fluctuation in the price of oil in the world market and it is difficult to predict and since the demand for oil is high and if the supply of oil decreases the price will be high. Obviously oil is not a perpetual resources and it means it is not renewable therefore this kind of behaviour of the consumer and the producer really prevails. Also there will be a time that these resources will be gone and we have to do something before it happens and it will be cheaper for us to use our abundant resources as an alternative source of power. Our country relied too much in importing this good making our net exports to go down and since our demand for foreign currency is high, then our own money will depreciate and because we are buying goods from them they are now acquiring an asset from us, thus decreasing our net capital outflow. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against trade because trade allows specialization and the country can produces its best goods and services in which it has a relatively lower cost and besides trade can make everyone better off. My only point is that our resources are there. Ready to be exploited but we are not using them and even we are using them we are not maximizing its full potential. If there will be a great deficit of supply for oil our country will greatly be affected. We also have to face the fact that our country is not that rich to import oil if the price increases too high. (Mankiw, 2009; Paul A. Samuelson, 2007)
Philippines is a rich country in terms of resources. We can be one of the best countries in the world if we want to. The only problem is that our country has a bad master. We don't know how to maximize our resources. We don't know how to tap all those resources around us so that we will no longer relied in oil as a source of energy.
You may not know but our country is already using coal as a source of energy and I'm very disheartened to tell you that we are not only importing oil but we are also importing coal from other countries. 75% of our consumption in 2007 came from other countries (7.7 million MT out of 10.2 million MT). Our main source was Indonesia (4.5 million MT), followed by China (2.1 million MT) but in 2008 China almost stopped in exporting coal to meet its own demand. These together with other fuel prices, pushed prices up at the wholesale electricity spot market, resulting in higher power rate for customers of Manila Electric Co. (Meralco).
The nice part is that somehow our government is making an action. The Philippine Energy plan has a plan to reduce our coal imports by 20 percent and encourage the local production. They want to increase our production from 12.2 million metric tons in 2008 to 15.28 million MT in 2014, of which 13.06 million MT are for power generation and 2.22 million MT are for industries.
The Department of Energy last May offered contracts to explore and develop 30 prospective coal areas in the country under the fourth Philippine Energy Contracting Round (PECR) 2009. PECR is a public bidding round which encouraged the companies to invest in the country's energy sector. The 14 provinces which is included in the bidding are Cebu (Bolijon, Carmen, Naga and Asturias), Quezon (General Nakar, Polillo Island and Tagkawayan), Masbate (Cataingan), Albay (Rapu-Rapu), Catanduanes (Caramoran, Panganiban and Viga), and Zamboanga del Norte (Godod), Zamboanga Sibugay (Diplahan-Buug, Siay, Payao and Naga).
Davao Oriental (Manay, Tarragona), Agusan del Sur (Bunawan, Sibagat and Trento), Surigao del Norte (Kitcharao and Gigaquit), Surigao del Sur (Cagwait-Marihatag, San Agustin-Lianga and Tandag-Tago), South Cotabato, Sarangani, and Sultan Kudarat (Bagumbayan and Senator Ninoy Aquino).
You may ask why our government chooses coal as a source of power generation. That's because it is abundant and it is relatively cheaper compared to other fuel types. If that is the case then why on earth the environmentalists strongly opposed for this project?
The environmentalist strongly opposed for this project because coal-fired power plants emit large amounts of carbon dioxide which contributing significantly from climate change. Note that carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases which trapped the heat to escape from earth. If too much carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere this will make the earth very hot. We don’t like that to happen, do we?
Second, the coal fired power plants also emit toxic substances like mercury and arsenic. These toxic substances have adverse effects on crops, humans, and even building materials. Environmental activist group Greenpeace estimates that a 100-MW coal plant emits at least 25 pounds of mercury per year but here’s the bad news. It will only take 0.002 pound of mercury to contaminate a 10 hectare lake! Besides from this surprising study, mercury can also cause severe brain damage in fetuses. Not only the fetuses are subject from the horror effect of mercury, we also adult can be killed by this deadly substance. How about arsenic? Is arsenic can also bring death to us? Well, the answer is pretty obvious. Like I said before arsenic is a toxic substance, thus it means that it is harmful. Arsenic is a known carcinogen or a substance that cause cancer.
Third, mining for coal can wiped out the forest but how? The forests are wiped out because to get a coal the first thing to do is to remove the mountaintop which also leads to the destruction and displacement of wildlife and degradation of air quality.
Fourth, coal can pollute the water bodies because if coals refuse in mine sites it can seep into the ground and contaminate the water underground.
Fifth, coal soot causes lung diseases like cancer.
There is nothing wrong if the government thinks that if we supplied our own needs of coal it can lower its expenditure and just used the money saved to other projects in benefitting the people, and at the same it can increase the employment rate because of the needs of worker in coal mining but the government must also take to consider the effect of coal in society and to our future generation. The government should make a cost and benefit analysis. Is it worth to risk the health of its own people just to produce a low cost (in terms of money) fuel source? Is it worth to destroy the environment to supply our short term needs of energy?
In the long run the little money saved by the government will be negative because the cost exceeds the benefit and besides if we used the coal as our primary source of energy we are going to have the same problem as before because coal is also a non renewable resource. There are still a lot of alternative sources of power like wind, sunlight and biomass. According to study conducted by the US the wind energy in the Philippines can supply more than seven times the country's power demand. Sunlight that falls on land half the size of Quezon City can provide for the whole country's energy needs. It will be costly of course to invest the right equipments to tap these resources but it is worth all the effort. In the long run the cost will be covered, the environment is safe from any harmful chemicals, and all living things especially the people will be safe. Therefore, coal is not our best option as alternative source of power. (Minerva Generalao).
No comments:
Post a Comment